-
WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!
Active crossovers measurably better?
- Thread starter stunta
- Start date
svart-hvitt
Major Contributor
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2017
- Messages
- 2,375
- Likes
- 1,253
They are around 30k each, so 60k for a stereo set.
Here's the schematic for the "crossover" in my speakers, actually separate high and low pass filters...
The panel gets capacitors in the path (high pass) and a little resistance ( .5 ohm minimum) and various tuned leakages.
The woofer gets a coil (low pass) and optional resistance (low cut), and some tuned leakage.
The panel is 10 x 22 inches - 255 x 560mm (that speaker is laid on its side)
High Voltage supply (2500V?) top right, panel step-up transformer (100:1?) top center
The panel gets capacitors in the path (high pass) and a little resistance ( .5 ohm minimum) and various tuned leakages.
The woofer gets a coil (low pass) and optional resistance (low cut), and some tuned leakage.
The panel is 10 x 22 inches - 255 x 560mm (that speaker is laid on its side)
High Voltage supply (2500V?) top right, panel step-up transformer (100:1?) top center
Last edited:
I'll just continue to fool myself into thinking I'm haz good sound.
My next bandage is on the way, a miniDSP 2x4HD to further smodulate my lower low frequencies.
Maybe I'll get rid of my little 40~50Hz phase hole.
Sounds very sensible... unless those simple little boxes cost $50,000 and don't work as well as $1000-worth of commodity parts connected together in the right way - which, I would claim, is the case*.
* I know the grown-up thing to say is ".. probably the case". And things like "An excellent passive crossover can be complex and expensive...", etc. The implication is that the active version just makes things easier for the lazy designer or is a 'sticking plaster'; that there are, and have been in the past, passive speakers that 'got it right'. But I don't believe it. The (competent) active speaker is simply the next level up in performance and its advantages propagate throughout the design.
Speakers for ‘audiophiles’ how do they differ say from really excellent speakers such as Dutch&Dutch’s 8C, more euphoric distortion?
Keith
Keith
cjfrbw
Senior Member
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2018
- Messages
- 410
- Likes
- 472
I have used active crossovers for 20 years. I can run a pair of the panels full range on my system without a crossover, too, for comparison and kind of splice in the layers and drivers with the active crossover all the way up to the complete surround system.
I use ribbons on the main two channels, which are fairly ideal for active crossovers. They have flat impedance and a good linear output for their defined frequency range.
I suppose that is what you would want for an active crossover system: speaker units that have uniform, linear power response and volume output across their useful frequency range and flattest possible impedance across said range. That way the crossovers can be standard slopes without a lot of corrective elements.
My front speakers have a four way active crossover, with the lows ultimately channeled to four subwoofers around the room, and surrounds for a total 8.4 system. The surrounds and bass control are mediated by a Yamaha AV preamp controller. The Yamaha handles DSP correction for the bass response and the surrounds, and the two front speakers with digital sources only.
I suppose the “problem” with most passive crossover systems is they tend to be a “one size fits all” solution for their speakers. Some are a bit better if they have a couple of db of adjustment for the midrange elements and high frequency elements, but most speakers don’t have these adjustments, and they are supposed to work in a huge variety of different listening environments/amps with the one size fits all passive crossover. Passive crossovers can also be quite power lossy as they start adding elements for steeper crossovers, attempting to match different speaker sensitivities, and adding elements for the varying eccentricities of speakers. L pads, resistors and Zobels can drop amplifier efficiencies.
I suppose aside from the raw subjective “speed” of the sound with active crossover, I find the active to be more conducive to adapting the speaker to the variable demands of the listening room.
Adding a large, complex network of passive electronic components to the output of an amplifier never computed with me as being the optimal way to use an amplifier.
I use DSP for bass and the surround systems. Because I like vinyl, my crossover is analog for the front two channels just because I like to keep things in the analog domain for analog sources. I’ll use the DSP on the front channels for digital sources.
I have heard of a few guys who have had the digital tweakorama active crossovers, able to adjust every time and phase domain/slope, who have actually gone back to analog active crossovers. I guess the digital crossovers aren’t as clean a panacea as are generally represented, but I would allow that digital technology has really gotten good, so they might work better as DACs have gotten better and more transparent.
What I have liked over the years with the active crossover is being able to optimize the different bands with different amplifiers and playing around with them. Being able to change the relative volumes of the different bands is also quite handy. Each band, aka bass, lower bass to midrange, midrange to upper midrange, and high all have various ways to optimize them.
The high frequency band from the upper midrange is especially elusive, in order to create air, detail and a proper sense of speed/detail to the harmonics. Some amps just screw this range up, even if they work well at the other frequency bands. I would have to say that a proper upper midrange/high frequency sound is so elusive and difficult that I can’t really imagine a passive crossover system that would get it right in most instances with the random array of amplifiers used with passive crossover speakers.
Active crossovers are a royal pain in the ass, however, with obviously lots more clutter. It’s hard to make one that visually appeals to the OC disorder crowd. You really have to pay attention to relative gain and phase in the speaker elements. It’s a LOT more general work. However, I can use 24 db slopes and make them work well without all of the power loss penalties of passives.
Passive crossovers can give a nice homogeneity to the sound, but in actual listening, a well set up active system sounds “faster” and more dynamic to me. That makes sense, because you have amps that are less stressed and more efficient in creating a given volume output, and the opportunity for better optimization of each frequency band. The amps are less stressed also because they cover a more limited frequency band.
Running the single panel with a single amp and no crossover actually sounds great, and sometimes I listen that way because it is “easy” with less equipment when I feel lazy about the system. It also gives me a basis for comparison with the active crossover system. However, layering in the active crossover and the additional elements always sounds better to me, quite a bit better.
Do active systems “measure” better at the speaker outputs? I wouldn’t know, but well utilized, I do think they can generally sound better than one size fits all passive crossover systems that use gargantuan amps to discipline the speaker elements and crossovers.
I use ribbons on the main two channels, which are fairly ideal for active crossovers. They have flat impedance and a good linear output for their defined frequency range.
I suppose that is what you would want for an active crossover system: speaker units that have uniform, linear power response and volume output across their useful frequency range and flattest possible impedance across said range. That way the crossovers can be standard slopes without a lot of corrective elements.
My front speakers have a four way active crossover, with the lows ultimately channeled to four subwoofers around the room, and surrounds for a total 8.4 system. The surrounds and bass control are mediated by a Yamaha AV preamp controller. The Yamaha handles DSP correction for the bass response and the surrounds, and the two front speakers with digital sources only.
I suppose the “problem” with most passive crossover systems is they tend to be a “one size fits all” solution for their speakers. Some are a bit better if they have a couple of db of adjustment for the midrange elements and high frequency elements, but most speakers don’t have these adjustments, and they are supposed to work in a huge variety of different listening environments/amps with the one size fits all passive crossover. Passive crossovers can also be quite power lossy as they start adding elements for steeper crossovers, attempting to match different speaker sensitivities, and adding elements for the varying eccentricities of speakers. L pads, resistors and Zobels can drop amplifier efficiencies.
I suppose aside from the raw subjective “speed” of the sound with active crossover, I find the active to be more conducive to adapting the speaker to the variable demands of the listening room.
Adding a large, complex network of passive electronic components to the output of an amplifier never computed with me as being the optimal way to use an amplifier.
I use DSP for bass and the surround systems. Because I like vinyl, my crossover is analog for the front two channels just because I like to keep things in the analog domain for analog sources. I’ll use the DSP on the front channels for digital sources.
I have heard of a few guys who have had the digital tweakorama active crossovers, able to adjust every time and phase domain/slope, who have actually gone back to analog active crossovers. I guess the digital crossovers aren’t as clean a panacea as are generally represented, but I would allow that digital technology has really gotten good, so they might work better as DACs have gotten better and more transparent.
What I have liked over the years with the active crossover is being able to optimize the different bands with different amplifiers and playing around with them. Being able to change the relative volumes of the different bands is also quite handy. Each band, aka bass, lower bass to midrange, midrange to upper midrange, and high all have various ways to optimize them.
The high frequency band from the upper midrange is especially elusive, in order to create air, detail and a proper sense of speed/detail to the harmonics. Some amps just screw this range up, even if they work well at the other frequency bands. I would have to say that a proper upper midrange/high frequency sound is so elusive and difficult that I can’t really imagine a passive crossover system that would get it right in most instances with the random array of amplifiers used with passive crossover speakers.
Active crossovers are a royal pain in the ass, however, with obviously lots more clutter. It’s hard to make one that visually appeals to the OC disorder crowd. You really have to pay attention to relative gain and phase in the speaker elements. It’s a LOT more general work. However, I can use 24 db slopes and make them work well without all of the power loss penalties of passives.
Passive crossovers can give a nice homogeneity to the sound, but in actual listening, a well set up active system sounds “faster” and more dynamic to me. That makes sense, because you have amps that are less stressed and more efficient in creating a given volume output, and the opportunity for better optimization of each frequency band. The amps are less stressed also because they cover a more limited frequency band.
Running the single panel with a single amp and no crossover actually sounds great, and sometimes I listen that way because it is “easy” with less equipment when I feel lazy about the system. It also gives me a basis for comparison with the active crossover system. However, layering in the active crossover and the additional elements always sounds better to me, quite a bit better.
Do active systems “measure” better at the speaker outputs? I wouldn’t know, but well utilized, I do think they can generally sound better than one size fits all passive crossover systems that use gargantuan amps to discipline the speaker elements and crossovers.
Last edited:
Introextro
Member
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2019
- Messages
- 15
- Likes
- 3
Hi,
I am trying to decide between a 4367 and an M2. Heard the M2 recently and they sounded fantastic. Is the M2 better? Or does the width of the 4367 help it get better in any respect? What was your experience?
Thanks!
I am trying to decide between a 4367 and an M2. Heard the M2 recently and they sounded fantastic. Is the M2 better? Or does the width of the 4367 help it get better in any respect? What was your experience?
Thanks!
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2018
- Messages
- 6,652
- Likes
- 9,406
As I understand it, both speakers use identical drivers, meaning that the main differences are simply:
- different horn/waveguide profiles (the M2 uses JBL's most recent design) - my presumption based on the dimensions of the waveguides would be that the M2 has a better-controlled vertical polar response
- M2 uses active crossovers with external electronics vs. internal passive crossovers on the 4367
Introextro
Member
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2019
- Messages
- 15
- Likes
- 3
Thanks. I also see differences in the cabinets and the horn. While the 4367 looks deeper the M2 has a different wave guide. Would this impact the sound too?
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2018
- Messages
- 6,652
- Likes
- 9,406
Re the horns, see my post #109.
Re the cabinets, the 4367’s greater depth is unlikely to make a significant difference, but I suspect the M2 has a heavier and more rigid cabinet (that’s just speculation though). Do you know mow much each cabinet weighs?
Introextro
Member
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2019
- Messages
- 15
- Likes
- 3
Yes, thank you. I am not sure how different the sound would be as a result of the different waveguide designs but I suspect it could be very different? The 4367 weighs a little more than the M2 @135 lb (61.2 kg) vs 129 lb. (58.5 kg)
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2018
- Messages
- 6,652
- Likes
- 9,406
Ok, I doubt the cabinets are significantly different in that case. I do suspect that the waveguides result in significant, audible differences, and like I said earlier, I suspect the M2 waveguide is the superior of the two. What I can say for certain simply based on the waveguides' dimensions is that the M2 waveguide will better control the vertical polar response of the speaker down to a lower frequency (as a result of being significantly larger in the vertical dimension).
Introextro
Member
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2019
- Messages
- 15
- Likes
- 3
Okay thanks. i heard the 4367s and i don't want to lose that sound since it was to my taste. Most helpful to learn that given the shape of the waveguide the two speakers may sound very different. Its just so hard to listen to the M2s even though I am in NYC, but I'll try before buying.
Similar threads
